First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply Nature of majority of philosophical disputes
5447 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
54 / M / Tacoma, WA. wind...
Offline
Posted 2/16/15
The biggest problem I run into is that people displace their thoughts and motivation on to me , going on the ridiculous idea that they are thinking the same thoughts as I do with the same motivation. Usually that is not the case.

It's almost like when one of my uncles would scold me for doing something they thought was wrong, usually having something to do with their kids, my cousins. Quite often I'd be asking the typical kid questions, usually why they can do "wrong" things but I can't.
They thought of my comments as being derogatory towards their kids as being a way to deflect blame for something that I did wrong. They never accepted the fact that I was just trying to get through to the reason why their kids could get away with various crap but for some reason I was held to a different standard.
True, the comments I made about their kids were probably derogatory but I was willing to accept the fact that I had done "wrong" but why was it that they seemed to never mind it when it was their kids?
They didn't seem to like the circular logic when, like William F. Buckley, I'd ask them the same question three or four times, each time differently, in search of a real answer.

Granted it still is a lot about semantics etc. but I think motivation can also be a point of misunderstanding. You can't think my thoughts for me or the reasons behind them.

Posted 2/17/15 , edited 2/17/15

nanikore2 wrote:


severticas wrote:

Have yoou been eating too much Bird's Eye food OP?


Have you stopped beating your wife?


Such childishness. You need talent to get this in relation to your original post.


This is Bird's Eye Food



And this is Bird's eye view



Maybe I was playfully taking the piss but there is no need to be so defensive.
55105 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / West
Offline
Posted 2/17/15
ouchie, my brain and this topic
27237 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Online
Posted 2/17/15 , edited 2/17/15

severticas wrote:


nanikore2 wrote:


severticas wrote:

Have yoou been eating too much Bird's Eye food OP?


Have you stopped beating your wife?


Such childishness. You need talent to get this in relation to your original post.



I see the reference to a loaded question (e.g. what you asked) went completely over your head. "Have you stopped beating your wife" is a classical example of a loaded question, which you asked in "Have you been eating too much Bird's Eye food OP?"

I've no idea what you're going on regarding "childishness" and "defensiveness". Just a reminder- Going into someone's modus operandi is a form of ad hominem; Try to avoid it.


GrateSaiyaman wrote:

The biggest problem I run into is that people displace their thoughts and motivation on to me , going on the ridiculous idea that they are thinking the same thoughts as I do with the same motivation. Usually that is not the case.

Granted it still is a lot about semantics etc. but I think motivation can also be a point of misunderstanding. You can't think my thoughts for me or the reasons behind them.



Point taken. Perhaps the topic should be about context in general (including psychological context) instead of merely semantic.
27237 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Online
Posted 2/17/15

BlueOni wrote:


nanikore2 wrote:

Once all terms are clarified then there is no further debate, because then it simply gets down to an arational "I feel this way" and "I don't feel this way". Once logic has been exhausted, it's the end of discussion.


Semantics is only one part of the broader field that is logic, the part that's concerned with the meaning of things. That the matter of semantics is settled in no way entails that the logical analysis is over. Indeed, that merely means that it now has a board on which to play.


I did not mean to imply that the scope of logical analysis in a dispute is limited to semantics. Perhaps there's a better way for me to word the thesis "The nature of majority of philosophical debates" so not to make it sound as if I'm making the implication.

I meant that once semantics has been taken care of, a large part of the logical dispute would be over. In this, perhaps we still disagree. You would need to show me how this is not the case.
Posted 2/17/15 , edited 2/17/15
What I asked was not a loaded question
It's just a difference of either actually being the ones arguing and the one observing the misunderstanding from where you can see the pattern and the picture.

Just within your first post did you already have everything to work with.
6506 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 2/17/15 , edited 2/17/15

GrateSaiyaman wrote:

The biggest problem I run into is that people displace their thoughts and motivation on to me , going on the ridiculous idea that they are thinking the same thoughts as I do with the same motivation. Usually that is not the case.

It's almost like when one of my uncles would scold me for doing something they thought was wrong, usually having something to do with their kids, my cousins. Quite often I'd be asking the typical kid questions, usually why they can do "wrong" things but I can't.
They thought of my comments as being derogatory towards their kids as being a way to deflect blame for something that I did wrong. They never accepted the fact that I was just trying to get through to the reason why their kids could get away with various crap but for some reason I was held to a different standard.
True, the comments I made about their kids were probably derogatory but I was willing to accept the fact that I had done "wrong" but why was it that they seemed to never mind it when it was their kids?
They didn't seem to like the circular logic when, like William F. Buckley, I'd ask them the same question three or four times, each time differently, in search of a real answer.

Granted it still is a lot about semantics etc. but I think motivation can also be a point of misunderstanding. You can't think my thoughts for me or the reasons behind them.



Ah, I really like this addition. Motivation plays a key role and is usually misunderstood, especially in textual dialogue, but in this example it's with agism.

Loaded question is one thing, leading question is a legally defined thing for court cases. Let's start to lean more towards that?

The "leading question" (I don't mean the OP, but the google-able concept) is something that people forget about if they want to respond to an assertion that they either agree or disagree with. Which is fair, not everybody is good at wielding and fielding the leading question, it should be used to start a conversation, not to end it.

The problem is, people don't take the leading question seriously when they disagree because they see it as rude. But the leading question is intended to either address hostility or to force a dead-end thought onto a different train. This should be semantically different from the "to be fair" statement, because "to be fair" is only addressing that you have cause to disbelieve but also somehow have reason to disagree. It's better to have cause to disagree and reason to disbelieve.

Do both if you can do either. Your uncle probably had a pretty firm preconceived notion of how your cousins were going to act, but he didn't take into account how kids (regardless of his rules for them) act when they're with other kids who have different roles and rules to fit with at home. Nobody's fault, kids say the darndest things. Bah, Bah, black sheep, I've got three bags full, myself.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.